Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
Hear hear. Some choices may be unfair, unreasonable, but that's a different debate.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
I've had that experience too (of getting almost run over). The implications of electric cars are fascinating in many respects, and are being considered by some clever people. Living close to the M60, I'm hoping it will have a positive impact for me, though I suspect at 70mph and at 400 yards away tire noise is more significant than engine noise.
Didn't they mull adding an artificial engine noise to alleviate near-misses?
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
In principle, I have no objection to things being re-purposed. Whether that was the right decision for the welfare system is another question, but it has undoubtedly moved so far from its original remit as to be unrecognisable.
Your question on How To Achieve It and Who Pays are, of course, far from the politicians mind when they dream-up their latest vote-winning wheeze. Evidence-based policy making was a slogan that was doomed to fail when faced with the civil service and the ministerial merry-go-round. [the answer to the second question is of course 'everyone']
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
Women used to be discriminated against in the past e.g. being made to leave certain Civil Service jobs when they got married.
I don't see why that is relevant now when determining the role of women in the public sector or indeed whether or not to promote a particular woman.
If I have not suffered any discrimination why should I benefit just because I'm the same sex as my grandmother who was discriminated against, for instance?
That's what I mean when I say I don't understand what the meaning of "historic" is in this context.
I also find it bizarre that we avoid dealing with the one characteristic which, probably more than any other, determines how well you do in our country: class.
Unless one is an aristocrat, all of us have ancestors who had very rough lives.
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
On a technical note i was arguing with another translator about that - I think "historic" means outstanding and/or surviving (e.g. St Pauls is a historic building, but not a historical one), and one needs to say "historical" for "something that used to exist" (the historical Viking invasions). He couldn't see the difference and aruged that modern usage was historic for both.
Yes, I know it's fussy, but the paper we were arguing over used the word about a zillion times, so we needed to get it right.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Yep. There's lots of research going into what the sound should be, how loud, and how directional. I'll see if I can find a linky.
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
Fascinating. Streets of directionally chiming electro-cars.
Why can't they play a directional snatch of Mozart?
It would seem simpler for them to play simulated engine noise. You could have a selection dial allowing your Volkswagen Butterfly to sound like a Ferrari, or a tractor, or a lawn mower.
Couldn't people just use their, I don't know, eyes? Instead of having bloody Vivaldi or Noddy-poop-poop car music being played down our streets.
In the future, cars will have theme tunes the way everyone had custom ringtones for a while. Ride of the Valkyries. The theme to Police Squad! The Crazy Frog.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Yep. There's lots of research going into what the sound should be, how loud, and how directional. I'll see if I can find a linky.
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
Fascinating. Streets of directionally chiming electro-cars.
Why can't they play a directional snatch of Mozart?
It would seem simpler for them to play simulated engine noise. You could have a selection dial allowing your Volkswagen Butterfly to sound like a Ferrari, or a tractor, or a lawn mower.
Couldn't people just use their, I don't know, eyes? Instead of having bloody Vivaldi or Noddy-poop-poop car music being played down our streets.
Uhm, what about, you know, the blind?
There are a fair few electric taxis where I used to live. It's surprisingly easy to be caught out by a MASSIVE CAR behind you.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
No it isn't. The implication is that some needy individuals will be treated worse than other needy individuals because they come from groups that are deemed to be privileged in aggregate.
On the substantive point, I think Anorak and Sean Fear are pragmatically right,though I get the logical point that Cyclefree makes. When considering welfare benefits, if there's an entire group of people who have traditionally been exploited, focused action may be the fairest and mos effective way to address it. To take a foreign example, it makes sense fot the Indian government to make special efforts for Untouchables, since they have traditionally been systematically impeded. If that ceased to be a problem (and one can argue that discrimination against women is ebbing quickly now), then the need for special treatment eventually goes away.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
Few
*When I lived in NZ the government did precisely this. Maori and Pacific Islanders were entitled to University grants that Pakekha (literally "settlers") were not. The purpose was to right historic wrongs. I think some Indian states do this too to benefit Dalits and scheduled castes.
Direct discrimination is frequently justified by reference to historic wrongs. Afrikaaners frequently justified apartheid by reference to wrongs suffered at British hands; African nationalists justified ill-treatment of Asians by reference to past wrongs; so do Malays justify their treatment of Chinese.
Malays discriminate against EVERYONE except Malays. It's a horrible system. The Chinese and Indians and other non-Malays loathe it, and who can blame them. And now some Malaysian Muslims want Sharia law, as well.
As increasingly unpleasant country. Singapore did the right thing.
Was it you said Singaporeans describe Malaysia thus "It smells like bum.?
In the future, cars will have theme tunes the way everyone had custom ringtones for a while. Ride of the Valkyries. The theme to Police Squad! The Crazy Frog.
What a time to be alive.
Why can't electric cars sound like horse's hooves going clippity-clop? Wouldn't it be thrilling to cross the road with the sound of galloping horses bearing down on you.
ON topic, my older daughter got into Fortismere school today, one of the best comprehensive schools in the country. Yay.
Piquantly, Fortismere is the latest evolution of Creighton Comprehensive, a school founded by north London lefties as a bastion of the counter-culture. Yet people now pay 40% extra for houses within the Fortismere catchment area - many tens of thousands - so it is essentially private schooling by another name.
The Labour Party and most leftists are in denial about this. As long as a school is officially designated as a state comprehensive, they don't care how expensive the properties are in the catchment area.
In the future, cars will have theme tunes the way everyone had custom ringtones for a while. Ride of the Valkyries. The theme to Police Squad! The Crazy Frog.
What a time to be alive.
Why can't electric cars sound like horse's hooves going clippity-clop? Wouldn't it be thrilling to cross the road with the sound of galloping horses bearing down on you.
You've cracked it.
All electric cars must be furnished with two working coconuts at all times.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Yep. There's lots of research going into what the sound should be, how loud, and how directional. I'll see if I can find a linky.
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
When we were kids we would sometimes play at car/motorbike driving by clipping an old playing card to our bike front wheel fork with a clothespin so that it played against the spokes. Since then, I have learned that cars are actually ridiculous and peculiar, 'tho dangerous and polluting. I expect that if one hovered somewhat above a roundabout, say, the traffic would look a bit like shiny metallic cockroaches scurrying about.
lol. American airline companies are the worst. Terrible service, awful food, just shite.
If you are flying a legacy US carrier, you aren't flying for the service! *sighs looking at his United reservation for later this week*
A famous and squillionaire online US travel agent dude (who I met in some glitzy Aussie resort on assignment) told me he NEVER flew American airlines, unless forced. And he explained why they are so shit: apparently it's because their massive domestic market makes them complacent, plus they sometimes work as a quasi-cartel.
I avoid them like Ebola.
Being a squillionaire certainly gives you options..
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Yep. There's lots of research going into what the sound should be, how loud, and how directional. I'll see if I can find a linky.
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
Fascinating. Streets of directionally chiming electro-cars.
Why can't they play a directional snatch of Mozart?
It would seem simpler for them to play simulated engine noise. You could have a selection dial allowing your Volkswagen Butterfly to sound like a Ferrari, or a tractor, or a lawn mower.
Couldn't people just use their, I don't know, eyes? Instead of having bloody Vivaldi or Noddy-poop-poop car music being played down our streets.
Uhm, what about, you know, the blind?
There are a fair few electric taxis where I used to live. It's surprisingly easy to be caught out by a MASSIVE CAR behind you.
Before the little 'un came along, my hobby was long-distance walking. This often involved many miles along roads. I always tried to walk facing oncoming traffic, as you should (except around sharp bends).
The most frightening moments were when cars coming in the opposite direction overtook; I would get no audible notice, and would ignore it when I did, because the noise was coming from behind on the other side of the road. Then a wing mirror would whizz seemingly inches past my body.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
No it isn't. The implication is that some needy individuals will be treated worse than other needy individuals because they come from groups that are deemed to be privileged in aggregate.
On the substantive point, I think Anorak and Sean Fear are pragmatically right,though I get the logical point that Cyclefree makes. When considering welfare benefits, if there's an entire group of people who have traditionally been exploited, focused action may be the fairest and mos effective way to address it. To take a foreign example, it makes sense fot the Indian government to make special efforts for Untouchables, since they have traditionally been systematically impeded. If that ceased to be a problem (and one can argue that discrimination against women is ebbing quickly now), then the need for special treatment eventually goes away.
I think the only way to equalise outcomes between groups is to act unfairly towards individuals.
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
On a technical note i was arguing with another translator about that - I think "historic" means outstanding and/or surviving (e.g. St Pauls is a historic building, but not a historical one), and one needs to say "historical" for "something that used to exist" (the historical Viking invasions). He couldn't see the difference and aruged that modern usage was historic for both.
Yes, I know it's fussy, but the paper we were arguing over used the word about a zillion times, so we needed to get it right.
Try being in computing: I've seen 'historic' used in the context of a processor released less than ten years ago ...
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
ON topic, my older daughter got into Fortismere school today, one of the best comprehensive schools in the country. Yay.
Piquantly, Fortismere is the latest evolution of Creighton Comprehensive, a school founded by north London lefties as a bastion of the counter-culture. Yet people now pay 40% extra for houses within the Fortismere catchment area - many tens of thousands - so it is essentially private schooling by another name.
The Labour Party and most leftists are in denial about this. As long as a school is officially designated as a state comprehensive, they don't care how expensive the properties are in the catchment area.
Schools are designed to serve their local area. It's publishing league tables that has caused this chaos. What's your solution Mr JS? And I don't understand your point anyway.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Yep. There's lots of research going into what the sound should be, how loud, and how directional. I'll see if I can find a linky.
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
When we were kids we would sometimes play at car/motorbike driving by clipping an old playing card to our bike front wheel fork with a clothespin so that it played against the spokes. Since then, I have learned that cars are actually ridiculous and peculiar, 'tho dangerous and polluting. I expect that if one hovered somewhat above a roundabout, say, the traffic would look a bit like shiny metallic cockroaches scurrying about.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
Is it right these paying passengers were being bumped for United Staff on standby jollies? If so, that's lunacy.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
Is it right these paying passengers were being bumped for United Staff on standby jollies? If so, that's lunacy.
I doubt it was standby jollies, but crew trying to get to their flights in another airport.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
Read the Slate article. Good economy. Most people trying to get back home or to another city for work. One day of work worth more than $800...
Do the math, it's simple. Airlines have to change their model, or open the way for a new service to steal the market from them.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
"Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice."
We've had this discussion before, but IME that's very wrong. Most people don't get given a menu of religions (or none) to choose from as a child; often the religion is imbued in the culture they are raised in. Your parents are Catholic, so you become Catholic. Your parents are Muslim, so you become Muslim.
Worse, there are often familial penalties for going against the familial religion.
The exception are people like Dr Sox who discover religion at a later age.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
"Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice."
We've had this discussion before, but IME that's very wrong. Most people don't get given a menu of religions (or none) to choose from as a child; often the religion is imbued in the culture they are raised in. Your parents are Catholic, so you become Catholic. Your parents are Muslim, so you become Muslim.
Worse, there are often familial penalties for going against the familial religion.
The exception are people like Dr Sox who discover religion at a later age.
It is still a choice to continue with the religion you are born into. It may entail incurring a familial penalty to do so, but you are, or should, be able to make that choice if you want. If you don't leave it, then your being of that faith is a firm choice. That it may well, and indeed usually does not, start out as a choice doesn't make it less of a choice later, even if culture and family might make exercising the choice more difficult than if you did get presented a menu.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
I am not sure they will lose money through the courts, but they will certainly lose customers!
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
Read the Slate article. Good economy. Most people trying to get back home or to another city for work. One day of work worth more than $800...
Do the math, it's simple. Airlines have to change their model, or open the way for a new service to steal the market from them.
No retirees off to see their kids at the weekend, or students with lectures tomorrow? Young mothers back from holiday?
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
Yes - no takers at $800 is surprising with the numbers on board, but they'd have hit a number someone would accept sooner or later, and its peanuts to them.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
I don't know why when the guy as bleeding they didn't think "Plan C" might be a good option.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
Is it right these paying passengers were being bumped for United Staff on standby jollies? If so, that's lunacy.
I don't know about standby jollies; it might have been staff who needed to get to a different airport for a different service. If they didn't arrive, United would have to cancel or delay another fight, inconveniencing many more passengers.
That might explain the necessity, but the heavy-handiness or violence. If it was jollies then everyone involved should be sacked.
This is the sort of situation where CEO's and top management really earn their money (or should lose their jobs).
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
It's also corporate culture. If the culture is efficiency at all costs, people forget that they are in a service industry and that passengers are humans, not seat-fillers.
United have a huge task to turn this around, not just in the court of public opinion, but in their corporate culture. If they were truly customer-oriented, no employee would ever have made the decisions that led to this action, and even if one did, the others would have spoken up and prevented it.
Where the fuck were the crew in all of this? Is this who they really want to be?
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
I have a feeling United will suffer very heavily for this.
And the rules of the whole industry may change on this too.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
Yes - no takers at $800 is surprising with the numbers on board, but they'd have hit a number someone would accept sooner or later, and its peanuts to them.
Just say you can have the next flight, first class, all the wine you can drink, on us. That's a good start.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
United have a huge task to turn this around, not just in the court of public opinion, but in their corporate culture.
Hard for them to even want to turn that kind of culture around, rather than merely fix any image issues arising from this incident. It'll be easy for them to say they want to, but do nothing. Like clothing manufacturers always so so surprised when factories of theirs subcontract work to others who use child labour. Sure they are surprised. Then it happens again.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
Yes - no takers at $800 is surprising with the numbers on board, but they'd have hit a number someone would accept sooner or later, and its peanuts to them.
Just say you can have the next flight, first class, all the wine you can drink, on us. That's a good start.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
Read the Slate article. Good economy. Most people trying to get back home or to another city for work. One day of work worth more than $800...
Do the math, it's simple. Airlines have to change their model, or open the way for a new service to steal the market from them.
No retirees off to see their kids at the weekend, or students with lectures tomorrow? Young mothers back from holiday?
Probably not on a last flight out over the weekend. There is already a very efficient pricing structure to squeeze every last bit out of customers' price inelasticity. Students and retirees were probably on early, less convenient flights based on price.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
Yes - no takers at $800 is surprising with the numbers on board, but they'd have hit a number someone would accept sooner or later, and its peanuts to them.
Just say you can have the next flight, first class, all the wine you can drink, on us. That's a good start.
That's probably worth less than $800!
I just meant, think of all the stuff that costs a quarter of what it's worth to them, start with that. Don't even need wadges of cash.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
In principle, I have no objection to things being re-purposed. Whether that was the right decision for the welfare system is another question, but it has undoubtedly moved so far from its original remit as to be unrecognisable.
Your question on How To Achieve It and Who Pays are, of course, far from the politicians mind when they dream-up their latest vote-winning wheeze. Evidence-based policy making was a slogan that was doomed to fail when faced with the civil service and the ministerial merry-go-round. [the answer to the second question is of course 'everyone']
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
Women used to be discriminated against in the past e.g. being made to leave certain Civil Service jobs when they got married.
That happened to my own mother. She had to leave the Foreign Office.
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
no volunteers for 800$? wow.
I had this when I lived in Oslo in the late 90s. Coming back on SAS on a Friday they would routinely overbook and I remember being offered £300 and a night in a hotel back then. But I was only coming back for the weekend to see my GF. They could have offered me a grand and I wouldn't have taken it.
As others have noted, I think, UA should simply have kept upping the offer until enough passengers accepted. $4000 a head (or free tickets on multiple further flights) would surely have saved them the many many millions they will now lose from this incident.
It's a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
United have a huge task to turn this around, not just in the court of public opinion, but in their corporate culture.
Hard for them to even want to turn that kind of culture around, rather than merely fix any image issues arising from this incident. It'll be easy for them to say they want to, but do nothing. Like clothing manufacturers always so so surprised when factories of theirs subcontract work to others who use child labour. Sure they are surprised. Then it happens again.
Then, as an industry (domestic airline travel), they will die a quick death once the hyperloops are in place. Or even when self-drive cars are reliable.
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
On a technical note i was arguing with another translator about that - I think "historic" means outstanding and/or surviving (e.g. St Pauls is a historic building, but not a historical one), and one needs to say "historical" for "something that used to exist" (the historical Viking invasions). He couldn't see the difference and aruged that modern usage was historic for both.
Yes, I know it's fussy, but the paper we were arguing over used the word about a zillion times, so we needed to get it right.
Try being in computing: I've seen 'historic' used in the context of a processor released less than ten years ago ...
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
In principle, I have no objection to things being re-purposed. Whether that was the right decision for the welfare system is another question, but it has undoubtedly moved so far from its original remit as to be unrecognisable.
Your question on How To Achieve It and Who Pays are, of course, far from the politicians mind when they dream-up their latest vote-winning wheeze. Evidence-based policy making was a slogan that was doomed to fail when faced with the civil service and the ministerial merry-go-round. [the answer to the second question is of course 'everyone']
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
Women used to be discriminated against in the past e.g. being made to leave certain Civil Service jobs when they got married.
That happened to my own mother. She had to leave the Foreign Office.
I believe that was the case until the late 70s, just before I joined.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
"Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice."
We've had this discussion before, but IME that's very wrong. Most people don't get given a menu of religions (or none) to choose from as a child; often the religion is imbued in the culture they are raised in. Your parents are Catholic, so you become Catholic. Your parents are Muslim, so you become Muslim.
Worse, there are often familial penalties for going against the familial religion.
The exception are people like Dr Sox who discover religion at a later age.
It is still a choice to continue with the religion you are born into. It may entail incurring a familial penalty to do so, but you are, or should, be able to make that choice if you want. If you don't leave it, then your being of that faith is a firm choice. That it may well, and indeed usually does not, start out as a choice doesn't make it less of a choice later, even if culture and family might make exercising the choice more difficult than if you did get presented a menu.
There's often a cultural and societal penalty as well.
Changing faith isn't easy. It's one reason why you have things like baptisms and bris: it's to ensure the child is now 'of' the religion. They've captured the child.
The inertia of changing religion is harsh: I know people who have changed religion, and in a few cases it's fucked up the relationships with their families.
In the case of my grandfather, whose parents were Plymouth Brethen, marrying outside the brethren was worse than murder. And he was still a strong Christian.
People may 'choose' to change religion, but their initial religion (or none) is mostly enforced. And the inertia against change can be hard to beat. It's an odd form of 'choice'.
They will end up giving this guy loads of dosh in compensation, to show how nice and sorry they are, and they will lose millions in business and branding. It really is that bad.
Small but compelling incidents can damage or even destroy big companies. Remember Perrier water? Once dominant, it is now a fraction of its former self, and ended up being bought by Nestle, because of a minor contamination issue.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
In principle, I have no objection to things being re-purposed. Whether that was the right decision for the welfare system is another question, but it has undoubtedly moved so far from its original remit as to be unrecognisable.
Your question on How To Achieve It and Who Pays are, of course, far from the politicians mind when they dream-up their latest vote-winning wheeze. Evidence-based policy making was a slogan that was doomed to fail when faced with the civil service and the ministerial merry-go-round. [the answer to the second question is of course 'everyone']
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
Women used to be discriminated against in the past e.g. being made to leave certain Civil Service jobs when they got married.
That happened to my own mother. She had to leave the Foreign Office.
I believe that was the case until the late 70s, just before I joined.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
"Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice."
We've had this discussion before, but IME that's very wrong. Most people don't get given a menu of religions (or none) to choose from as a child; often the religion is imbued in the culture they are raised in. Your parents are Catholic, so you become Catholic. Your parents are Muslim, so you become Muslim.
Worse, there are often familial penalties for going against the familial religion.
The exception are people like Dr Sox who discover religion at a later age.
It inu.
There's often a cultural and societal penalty as well.
Changing faith isn't easy. It's one reason why you have things like baptisms and bris: it's to ensure the child is now 'of' the religion. They've captured the child.
The inertia of changing religion is harsh: I know people who have changed religion, and in a few cases it's fucked up the relationships with their families.
In the case of my grandfather, whose parents were Plymouth Brethen, marrying outside the brethren was worse than murder. And he was still a strong Christian.
People may 'choose' to change religion, but their initial religion (or none) is mostly enforced. And the inertia against change can be hard to beat. It's an odd form of 'choice'.
It's not an odd form of choice - it can just be a very hard choice, for the reasons you state very well. That most people are happy not to make a change, or are content to simply not be very observant in their faith rather than switch or reject the initial faith, doesn't make it not a choice. It is still available as one even if most people don't exercise it.
ETA: I don't mean to seem to belittle the significance of making such a choice, of the cost it might entail, which could be personally devastating through to harmful in the worst instances. But religion is about choice, surely, about choosing the correct path rather than just listening to one's elders or culture, or else none of them would have arisen in the first place, displacing the preceding faiths.
I passionately hate flying. However two I was on a flight from Dublin with a sailor who was exceptionally drunk and obnoxious - to the extent I pretended not to know him in case he (and I) were chucked off the flight.
And an Aussie ex of mine was nearly chucked off a flight as well - as she put it; "at 40,000 feet." Because she was mouthing off and swearing to the cabin staff (*)
The staff have to remain civil and polite to all their customers, even when their customers do not return the compliment. I guess that can be hard.
(*) I once found her on Fen Ditton war memorial, passed out, wearing just a jumper with a stuffed wombat sticking out of her cleavage. True story. Aussies are fun.
And an Aussie ex of mine was nearly chucked off a flight as well - as she put it; "at 40,000 feet." Because she was mouthing off and swearing to the cabin staff (*) (*) I once found her on Fen Ditton war memorial, passed out, wearing just a jumper with a stuffed wombat sticking out of her cleavage. True story. Aussies are fun.
I passionately hate flying. However two I was on a flight from Dublin with a sailor who was exceptionally drunk and obnoxious - to the extent I pretended not to know him in case he (and I) were chucked off the flight.
And an Aussie ex of mine was nearly chucked off a flight as well - as she put it; "at 40,000 feet." Because she was mouthing off and swearing to the cabin staff (*)
The staff have to remain civil and polite to all their customers, even when their customers do not return the compliment. I guess that can be hard.
(*) I once found her on Fen Ditton war memorial, passed out, wearing just a jumper with a stuffed wombat sticking out of her cleavage. True story. Aussies are fun.
On the one hand, there does seem something ever so slightly unbalanced about that particular passenger in those clips.
On the other, I can't help wonder how differently he might have been treated had he been an American WASP.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
It may or may not be bollocks. The law is well known to be an ass at times!
I refer you to the Equality Act of 2010
This defines indirect discrimination, and the groups with protected characteristics to which it applies. Being childless is not one of these.
I passionately hate flying. However two I was on a flight from Dublin with a sailor who was exceptionally drunk and obnoxious - to the extent I pretended not to know him in case he (and I) were chucked off the flight.
And an Aussie ex of mine was nearly chucked off a flight as well - as she put it; "at 40,000 feet." Because she was mouthing off and swearing to the cabin staff (*)
The staff have to remain civil and polite to all their customers, even when their customers do not return the compliment. I guess that can be hard.
(*) I once found her on Fen Ditton war memorial, passed out, wearing just a jumper with a stuffed wombat sticking out of her cleavage. True story. Aussies are fun.
I have flown but rarely in my life, and I've no doubt from those experiences that there is a lot about the job that would be pretty shitty on a bad day especially, but then service industries have to deal with needing to be polite and civil even in the face of its lack all the time, and that there was a choice to respond so aggressively when, as pointed out, there were easier options available, speaks poorly of where the priorities were. I presume there was no policy for offering a further cash incentive and no one else to authorise it, so they went for the nuclear option.
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
On a technical note i was arguing with another translator about that - I think "historic" means outstanding and/or surviving (e.g. St Pauls is a historic building, but not a historical one), and one needs to say "historical" for "something that used to exist" (the historical Viking invasions). He couldn't see the difference and aruged that modern usage was historic for both.
Yes, I know it's fussy, but the paper we were arguing over used the word about a zillion times, so we needed to get it right.
People not understanding the difference is a pet hate of mine. I deal with statistics quite a bit, and under no circumstance ever ever is the passenger flow at Luton Airport in 2002 "historic". It is of course a historical fact. [and also not an historical fact]
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
"Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice."
We've had this discussion before, but IME that's very wrong. Most people don't get given a menu of religions (or none) to choose from as a child; often the religion is imbued in the culture they are raised in. Your parents are Catholic, so you become Catholic. Your parents are Muslim, so you become Muslim.
Worse, there are often familial penalties for going against the familial religion.
The exception are people like Dr Sox who discover religion at a later age.
It is still a choice to continue with the religion you are born into. It may entail incurring a familial penalty to do so, but you are, or should, be able to make that choice if you want. If you don't leave it, then your being of that faith is a firm choice. That it may well, and indeed usually does not, start out as a choice doesn't make it less of a choice later, even if culture and family might make exercising the choice more difficult than if you did get presented a menu.
There's often a cultural and societal penalty as well.
Changing faith isn't easy. It's one reason why you have things like baptisms and bris: it's to ensure the child is now 'of' the religion. They've captured the child.
The inertia of changing religion is harsh: I know people who have changed religion, and in a few cases it's fucked up the relationships with their families.
In the case of my grandfather, whose parents were Plymouth Brethen, marrying outside the brethren was worse than murder. And he was still a strong Christian.
People may 'choose' to change religion, but their initial religion (or none) is mostly enforced. And the inertia against change can be hard to beat. It's an odd form of 'choice'.
I'm an atheist these days. I think God started the whole science v religion thing off when he threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden simply because they wanted to obtain knowledge.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
It may or may not be bollocks. The law is well known to be an ass at times!
I refer you to the Equality Act of 2010
This defines indirect discrimination, and the groups with protected characteristics to which it applies. Being childless is not one of these.
Indirect discrimination is lawful, provided it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end (although that begs many questions).
But, nothing in the Equality Act can prevent the implementation of a Finance Act. Even if the latter conflicts with the former, it implicitly repeals it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
It may or may not be bollocks. The law is well known to be an ass at times!
I refer you to the Equality Act of 2010
This defines indirect discrimination, and the groups with protected characteristics to which it applies. Being childless is not one of these.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first?
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
It may or may not be bollocks. The law is well known to be an ass at times!
I refer you to the Equality Act of 2010
This defines indirect discrimination, and the groups with protected characteristics to which it applies. Being childless is not one of these.
I passionately hate flying. However two I was on a flight from Dublin with a sailor who was exceptionally drunk and obnoxious - to the extent I pretended not to know him in case he (and I) were chucked off the flight.
And an Aussie ex of mine was nearly chucked off a flight as well - as she put it; "at 40,000 feet." Because she was mouthing off and swearing to the cabin staff (*)
The staff have to remain civil and polite to all their customers, even when their customers do not return the compliment. I guess that can be hard.
(*) I once found her on Fen Ditton war memorial, passed out, wearing just a jumper with a stuffed wombat sticking out of her cleavage. True story. Aussies are fun.
But all of that has absolutely zero to do with this case.
I passionately hate flying. However two I was on a flight from Dublin with a sailor who was exceptionally drunk and obnoxious - to the extent I pretended not to know him in case he (and I) were chucked off the flight.
And an Aussie ex of mine was nearly chucked off a flight as well - as she put it; "at 40,000 feet." Because she was mouthing off and swearing to the cabin staff (*)
The staff have to remain civil and polite to all their customers, even when their customers do not return the compliment. I guess that can be hard.
(*) I once found her on Fen Ditton war memorial, passed out, wearing just a jumper with a stuffed wombat sticking out of her cleavage. True story. Aussies are fun.
I have flown but rarely in my life, and I've no doubt from those experiences that there is a lot about the job that would be pretty shitty on a bad day especially, but then service industries have to deal with needing to be polite and civil even in the face of its lack all the time, and that there was a choice to respond so aggressively when, as pointed out, there were easier options available, speaks poorly of where the priorities were. I presume there was no policy for offering a further cash incentive and no one else to authorise it, so they went for the nuclear option.
I agree. On the other hand, on flights is also the very real threat of terrorism, when a limited amount of restraining violence might be called for. Or perhaps even in case of non-terrorism (e.g. a case where a passenger was trying to open a door in flight - something the system didn't allow him to do, but you want to restrain him just in case
So you have staff who need to deal with people who can be genuinely nice and lovely, or right asses. Or might even want to take your life. And they need to make that judgement in a few moments. Once a judgement is made, it is hard to deescalate things.
Probably not relevant to this case, but it might explain why, occasionally, such staff over-react. The same with the police and similar services.
I passionately hate flying. However two I was on a flight from Dublin with a sailor who was exceptionally drunk and obnoxious - to the extent I pretended not to know him in case he (and I) were chucked off the flight.
And an Aussie ex of mine was nearly chucked off a flight as well - as she put it; "at 40,000 feet." Because she was mouthing off and swearing to the cabin staff (*)
The staff have to remain civil and polite to all their customers, even when their customers do not return the compliment. I guess that can be hard.
(*) I once found her on Fen Ditton war memorial, passed out, wearing just a jumper with a stuffed wombat sticking out of her cleavage. True story. Aussies are fun.
But all of that has absolutely zero to do with this case.
Perhaps. But it might explain why a situation, when stupidly started, escalated.
It's why you generally don't want to put soldiers who are trained to kill in policing roles amongst civilians.
Comments
Yes, I know it's fussy, but the paper we were arguing over used the word about a zillion times, so we needed to get it right.
What a time to be alive.
https://twitter.com/gideonresnick/status/851504277931651072
All electric cars must be furnished with two working coconuts at all times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHFXG3r_0B8
Since then, I have learned that cars are actually ridiculous and peculiar, 'tho dangerous and polluting. I expect that if one hovered somewhat above a roundabout, say, the traffic would look a bit like shiny metallic cockroaches scurrying about.
The most frightening moments were when cars coming in the opposite direction overtook; I would get no audible notice, and would ignore it when I did, because the noise was coming from behind on the other side of the road. Then a wing mirror would whizz seemingly inches past my body.
It's not as simple as using your eyes.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-united-drags-passenger-0411-biz-20170410-story.html
This was the last flight on the route on Sunday evening, and the airline were not offering bumped passengers another flight until 3pm on Monday. Apparently, the passenger was a physician with patients lined up to see him in the morning, and hence refused to be bumped.
A great article on how airlines have gone too far in deliberate overbooking of flights, and as to why their offers of money and hotel rooms to those bumped is no longer attractive. Hopefully, United will suffer very badly from this incident, and the industry as a whole will be reminded that it provides a service to its passengers, not that its routes are run for the airlines' convenience.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/04/10/united_punished_a_passenger_for_its_own_outdated_overbooking_system.html
Personally, I shall be avoiding United as much as I can. Fortunately, they lost the USG contract on the routes I most frequently travel (DC to the ME), and so have cancelled those routes.
Alas, there are about the best of the US international carriers, but they have got markedly worse in the last 2-3 years.
This should be a wake-up call to the entire US commercial aviation industry.
Do the math, it's simple. Airlines have to change their model, or open the way for a new service to steal the market from them.
We've had this discussion before, but IME that's very wrong. Most people don't get given a menu of religions (or none) to choose from as a child; often the religion is imbued in the culture they are raised in. Your parents are Catholic, so you become Catholic. Your parents are Muslim, so you become Muslim.
Worse, there are often familial penalties for going against the familial religion.
The exception are people like Dr Sox who discover religion at a later age.
That might explain the necessity, but the heavy-handiness or violence. If it was jollies then everyone involved should be sacked.
This is the sort of situation where CEO's and top management really earn their money (or should lose their jobs).
United have a huge task to turn this around, not just in the court of public opinion, but in their corporate culture. If they were truly customer-oriented, no employee would ever have made the decisions that led to this action, and even if one did, the others would have spoken up and prevented it.
Where the fuck were the crew in all of this? Is this who they really want to be?
And the rules of the whole industry may change on this too.
Changing faith isn't easy. It's one reason why you have things like baptisms and bris: it's to ensure the child is now 'of' the religion. They've captured the child.
The inertia of changing religion is harsh: I know people who have changed religion, and in a few cases it's fucked up the relationships with their families.
In the case of my grandfather, whose parents were Plymouth Brethen, marrying outside the brethren was worse than murder. And he was still a strong Christian.
People may 'choose' to change religion, but their initial religion (or none) is mostly enforced. And the inertia against change can be hard to beat. It's an odd form of 'choice'.
With United, and american airlines in general, it's the fact there are a constant stream of similar stories that is the most damaging.
ETA: I don't mean to seem to belittle the significance of making such a choice, of the cost it might entail, which could be personally devastating through to harmful in the worst instances. But religion is about choice, surely, about choosing the correct path rather than just listening to one's elders or culture, or else none of them would have arisen in the first place, displacing the preceding faiths.
It's the home of corporatism, protectionism, cartels, and special interests.
I passionately hate flying. However two I was on a flight from Dublin with a sailor who was exceptionally drunk and obnoxious - to the extent I pretended not to know him in case he (and I) were chucked off the flight.
And an Aussie ex of mine was nearly chucked off a flight as well - as she put it; "at 40,000 feet." Because she was mouthing off and swearing to the cabin staff (*)
The staff have to remain civil and polite to all their customers, even when their customers do not return the compliment. I guess that can be hard.
(*) I once found her on Fen Ditton war memorial, passed out, wearing just a jumper with a stuffed wombat sticking out of her cleavage. True story. Aussies are fun.
On the other, I can't help wonder how differently he might have been treated had he been an American WASP.
I refer you to the Equality Act of 2010
This defines indirect discrimination, and the groups with protected characteristics to which it applies. Being childless is not one of these.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/
https://twitter.com/prweekus/status/842484619744178176
So you have staff who need to deal with people who can be genuinely nice and lovely, or right asses. Or might even want to take your life. And they need to make that judgement in a few moments. Once a judgement is made, it is hard to deescalate things.
Probably not relevant to this case, but it might explain why, occasionally, such staff over-react. The same with the police and similar services.
It's why you generally don't want to put soldiers who are trained to kill in policing roles amongst civilians.